Sham Lal Inder Sen vs Amar Singh

J.M. Tandon, J.

Messrs Sham Lal Inder Sen Cloth Merchants, Fatehabad, District Hissar (petitioner) filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3767.20, including Rs. 2770/ as principal and the balance as interest against Amar Singh respondent on the basis of a Bahi entry dated January 12, 1973. The respondent moved an application under Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1976 (hereinafter the Act) alleging therein that he is an agricultural labourer and depends on agriculture and his income is not more than Rs. 2000/. The debt due from him to the petitioner shall stand discharged under the Act with the result that the suit is not maintainable.

The petitioner opposed the application filed by the respondent alleging that the latter''s annual income is Rs. 15,000/ and he owns 15 Acres of land and is not an agriculturist.

The trial Court in the impugned order dated January 20, 1977, observed that the dispute between the parties is whether the respondent is a debtor and the transaction a debt in terms of the Act or not. The Settlement Officer alone is competent to decide these points under section 18 of the Act and further section 19 thereof bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any dispute to recover the debt which has been deemed to have been duly discharged under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have approached the Settlement Officer to obtain a decision on the points whether the respondent is a debtor and the transaction a debt in terms of the Act or not. The proceedings in the civil suit were consequently stayed. The petitioner has assailed the order of the trial Court dated January 20, 1977, in the present revision.

The respondent has not put in appearance in spite of service.

The relevant parts of section 5, 18 and 19 of the Act read:

"5. Discharge of debt. Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force or in any contract or other instrument having the force of law. (a) every debt, together with any interest payable thereon, owed on the commencement of this Act by an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan, or a marginal farmer, whose annual household income does not exceed two thousand and four hundred rupees shall be deemed to be wholly discharged ; (b) every debt owed to any person by an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan, or a marginal farmer, whose annual household income exceeds two thousand and four hundred rupees and a small farmer shall be deemed to be wholly discharged if :(i) he, had in the discharge of his debt, paid a sum exceeding or equivalent to double the amount of the debt at any time before the commencement of this Act ; (ii) he, in the discharge of his debt, pays, after the commencement of this Act, a sum which, together with any sum already paid in the discharge of such debt, is equivalent to double the amount of the debt; ... ...

Decision of Debt Settlement Officer to be final. If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act whether a loan or liability is a debt no not, or whether a person is a debtor or not, the decision of the Debt Settlement Officer shall be final, and shall not be called into question in any Court.

Bar of civil suits. No civil Court shall entertain (a) any suit, appeal or application for revision (i) to question the validity of any procedure of the legality of any order issued under this Act; or (ii) to recover any debt which has been deemed to have been duly discharged under the provisions of this Act; (b) any application to execute a decree passed by a civil Court against a debtor; (c) any suit for declaration, or any suit or application for injunction affecting any proceedings under this Act before a Debt Settlement Officer."

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that without recording a finding whether the respondent is a debtor and the amount claimed by the petitioner a debt in terms of the Act, the trial Court could not stay the proceedings in the civil suit sine die and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail. The trial Court has wrongly stayed the proceedings in the civil suit filed by the petitioner merely on the ground that the respondent had moved an application alleging that the debt due from him to the petitioner stood discharged under the Act and moreso when the claim of the respondent was contested by the petitioner. The impugned order of the trial Court, therefore, cannot be sustained.

In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated January 20, 1977, set aside. The trial Court will proceed to decide the suit filed by the petitioner according to law.